Promissory note presumption and holder in due course principles upheld where execution was admitted and rebuttal evidence failed.

Admission of execution of a promissory note attracted the statutory presumption of consideration, shifting the burden to the defendant to prove absence of consideration or invalidity of the endorsement. Oral evidence from attestors and surrounding circumstances supported the plaintiff's case, and the transferee was treated as a holder in due course entitled to enforce the instrument. The defendant's rebuttal evidence was found unreliable, so the presumption was not displaced and the endorsement was upheld as valid. The concurrent factual findings were left undisturbed in second appeal, and the money decree was maintained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the plaintiff established that the promissory note was supported by consideration and that he became a holder in due course. (ii) Whether the defendant successfully rebutted the presumption arising from the admitted execution of the promissory note and proved that the endorsement or made over was invalid.

Issue (i): Whether the plaintiff established that the promissory note was supported by consideration and that he became a holder in due course.

Analysis: The execution of the promissory note by the defendant was admitted, and oral evidence of the attestors supported the passing of consideration. The endorsement made over in favour of the plaintiff was also accepted on the evidence, and the instrument was treated as negotiable in the hands of the transferee for value. The statutory presumption operating in favour of the holder was not displaced by any convincing rebuttal evidence.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the respondent. The plaintiff was held to be a holder in due course entitled to enforce the promissory note.

Issue (ii): Whether the defendant successfully rebutted the presumption arising from the admitted execution of the promissory note and proved that the endorsement or made over was invalid.

Analysis: Once execution of the instrument was admitted, the burden shifted to the defendant to prove absence of consideration and to establish the alleged fabrication or invalidity of the endorsement. The defendant's version remained unsupported by reliable rebuttal evidence, while the testimony of the attestors and the surrounding circumstances were found consistent with the plaintiff's case. In second appeal, no substantial question of law arose to disturb the concurrent factual findings.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the appellant. The presumption was not rebutted and the endorsement was upheld as valid.

Final Conclusion: The concurrent findings granting the money decree were left undisturbed, and the second appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a dispute on a negotiable instrument, admission of execution attracts the statutory presumption and shifts the burden to the defendant, while a transferee for value may enforce the instrument as holder in due course unless the presumption is rebutted by credible evidence; concurrent factual findings will not ordinarily be interfered with in second appeal.

---